The Days of Our Ridazz.

NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.

Cobian's mother, Carmen Cobian told Eyewitness News that she loved her son very much and does not understand why deputies shot and killed him. She said her son would never carry a gun or hurt anyone.

In a press release sent Sunday afternoon, sheriff's officials said their suspect was wanted for an Inglewood felony narcotics warrant. He was on probation for the felony crime of receiving stolen property and also had three felony convictions on his record. Deputies said he was an Inglewood gang member who had recently moved to Lancaster.

Many folks might have questions as to policy and procedures with regard to police shootings. While I can not comment on the policies of the Sheriff's or about this case in particular (as I do not have all of the information), I will be happy to answer any general inquiries about uses of force, deadly force, and the standards to which law enforcement is held.

Sgt. David Krumer, i do have a question. with all respect here. and i don't have any details or info on this case, i'm just saying here... a generalization...

but when has it become priority to shoot and kill, ANYONE, let alone suspects without any information that the suspects are truly criminal, or even armed?

understanding safety, and that the officers do not know if suspect is armed or not, but aren't officers trained, these days, with many alternatives to remedy a situation, in many different ways, rather than just "shoot and kill"?

why are shots not fired at arms and legs, to detain and slightly injure the suspect that might be reaching for a weapon, instead of straight shooting the chest and head, and killing them instantly?!?

with today's technology, camera's, infa-red cameras and sensors, metal detectors, tazers, stun guns, deterrent sprays, bright (blinding) lights, etc... there should be no excuse for these killings. cold blooded killings, more like it.

an officer should not be able to shoot and kill any person, without at first having FULL VISUAL of a weapon, and with a clear intent of suspect trying to retaliate forcefully. in other words, unless the suspect clearly has a weapon and is starting to point it back towards officers and is clearly going to fire - should officers then start firing. and again, just kill a man? no - they should be aiming at his legs, arms and utilizing other tactics to bring down a suspect, rather than just simply kill a man. an innocent man. a man, whom you know absolutely nothing about. no idea why he's running, no idea what could possibly be his reasoning, no idea that maybe the guy was just on some heavy medication or could just be on drugs... stressed out, depressed, emotional, who knows?!?!? and to deserve death like this?

i'm sorry, but i can't rationalize this. and unless you have anything really substantial here to back up WHY officers are allowed to act this way... and just saying "officers feared for their safety", isn't going to work - they have helmets and bullet-proof vests on! they're hiding behind armor plated cars and windows! officers come equipped with several weapons! officers could EASILY hide out of harms way, and call BACKUP!

i can only side with charging the officers as 1st degree, cold-blooded murder. that's just wrong, what they did. and i hope they pay for it, like every other cold-blodded murderer does. or maybe someone should just shoot them.... ooooops, sorry!!!!

since when did police officers on regular patrols become cold-hearted killers?

are police officers here to PROTECT AND SERVE, or just to SHOOT AND KILL?

i find it impossible to believe that with more than one officer on the scene, only one suspect, that this situation had to unravel in death so quickly. very, very poor judgement on the officer's behalf.

this is not the first case, this has started to become a re-curing issue lately. more innocent people are getting gunned-down by police and are being abused by excessive police force.

i don't hate cops. i don't hate the law. i'd like to believe the police are here to help, and protect and serve. understanding safety concerns for officers is top priority, yes - but this has got to stop.

this makes the very few, 100% good cops, look just as dirty and evil as many of the bad cop stories that catch our constant attention in the news.

apparently, badges are not treated respectfully, at all, anymore. there should be a much greater extent of training, conditioning and years of on-the-job evaluation, before true badges are given out to truly deserving professionals.

this is not professional. this is not respectful. this is not human

sorry, i ranted quite a bit here. can you please explain, priority to shoot and kill? no limbs, just straight shots to the chest and dome? these are the rules, now? no other situational alternatives? no other methods are considered, before just shooting a suspect these days? so anyone, at any time, that decides to run from police, can just be SHOT?!?!? other tactics, such as sprays, lights, tazers, etc - just aren't even considered?

Redline responding to a comment by Sgt. David Krumer
01.24.12 - 9:05 pm

Hi Redline,
You asked some very good questions which I believe deserve an answer. I am confident that many folks echo your thoughts and concerns. I will attempt to answer each point in turn:

“Why are shots not fired at arms and legs, to detain and slightly injure the suspect that might be reaching for a weapon, instead of straight shooting the chest and head, and killing them instantly?!?”

In movies and TV shows they often portray an officer shoot a weapon out of a person’s hand, or otherwise incapacitate a suspect. The reality is that arms and legs are smaller targets that move constantly. The arns/legs are a difficult shot under the best of circumstances and nearly impossible in a dynamic situation. There is no amount of training that will bring proficiency up to the TV examples shown. Even more important is the fact that there is no guarantee that an arm or leg shot will stop the threat posed by the suspect. So even if officers did have the fictional proficiency of movie cops it would still be imprudent to select arms/legs as targets. Its simply not real life. Officers are trained to stop the suspect….unfortunately the targets that stop the threat are targets that will most likely result in the suspects’ death. This may seem like splitting hairs but it is a vital legal distinction as there is no intent to kill per se. So imagine that a suspect is about to shot you. Do you select the arm/leg with a 5% chance of making the shot and a 80% chance that even if you do the suspect may still fire upon you? Or do you take the shot at center body mass where there is a 80% chance you will hit the target and an 80% chance that when you do the suspect will stop?

“An officer should not be able to shoot and kill any person, without at first having FULL VISUAL of a weapon, and with a clear intent of suspect trying to retaliate forcefully. in other words, unless the suspect clearly has a weapon and is starting to point it back towards officers and is clearly going to fire - should officers then start firing.”

In a perfect world you would be absolutely correct. The reality is that by the time the weapon is out the officer is already too late. In the academy there are numerous exercises and examples where a suspect suddenly draws his weapon and the officers need to react. Without fail by the time the officer recognizes that the suspect has armed himself the suspect is able to get off at least one shot. Perception and reaction time create a lag that favors the suspect. 80% of armed suspects carry their weapon in their front right pocket or in their waistband. Almost without exception a person that runs from police is either engaged in criminal activity or has a criminal record. So from the perspective of the officer imagine the following: You attempt to contact a person for a minor offense who upon seeing you takes off running, upon pursuing him he reaches for his waistband rather than comply with orders to stop. You known that the person’s reaction is the reaction a criminal would have, you know that he is reaching for his waistband where armed criminals typically have their weapon, you know that if he pulls that weapon out he will get at least one shot off. Now keeping all that in mind…does the officer have reasonable fear for his safety? Can you honestly say that you would not be afraid for your life knowing these facts? It may be that the person is not armed (in fact half the time they are not), it may be that they are wearing pants three sizes too big and are holding them up as they run. The issue is not whether there is or is not a gun…the issue is whether the officers reasonably feared for their safety under the circumstances.

Assuming that they do have appropriate cover, and the suspect is not a danger to bystanders, then they would not be able use deadly force as there is no immediate defense of life. In the scenario where officers are chasing a suspect, they do not have helmets and they do not have the benefit of their vehicles for cover. They have their vests. Certainly you are not suggesting that an officer should risk getting shot because the suspect will most likely hit them in the vest. So then the issue is if there is other available cover for the officers to “hide” behind if they believe the suspect is armed. An officer can take cover if the suspect is contained and subsequently call for back-up. If the suspect is not contained than “hiding” will result in a potentially armed suspect’s escape into the community.

The legal standard used to determine the lawfulness of a use of force is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Graham states in part, "The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.� The force must be reasonable under the circumstances known to the officer at the time the force was used.

I know my explanations may not give you comfort but I am hopeful that they at least provide you with insight. Please remember cops react to the actions of the suspect. It is completely within the suspects control whether the situation will escalate or not. People do not get shot for running from the police. People do not get shot for minor traffic violations. People get shot because they create the circumstances that cause an officer to believe there is an imminent threat to life.

Sgt. David Krumer, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my questions and sift through my rant, lol. i guess i was a little upset here. this is like the third shooting case i've heard about recently, within a short time, and i guess im just a bit over it.

i mean, strait up shooting people, i feel like that's so 1990. i'm quite sure in this day and age, there must be safer and less-harmful alternatives to subdue a suspect, or control a situation, without involving death. our military must have tried many, many options over the decades worth of war. i find it ridiculous that after all these years, we are still resorting to regular guns and ammo. and still just killing people, left and right. with all the technological advances in the past 20 years alone, it's seriously time for change.

great point - targeting flailing limbs (or any small moving target) surely wouldn't be easy, or ideal in a crucial situation. i guess i was already aware of this, but the way you put it into percentage perspective, makes quite a bit more sense.

unfortunately, here you are absolutely correct:

"Please remember cops react to the actions of the suspect. It is completely within the suspects control whether the situation will escalate or not. People do not get shot for running from the police. People do not get shot for minor traffic violations. People get shot because they create the circumstances that cause an officer to believe there is an imminent threat to life."

i say unfortunately at this point, because it is just that. it's unfortunate in that moment of time, police are forced to make that quick decision, and resort to those measures.

and those measures they resort to - that's where the problem resides. are there no other options, than standard guns and bullets?

tazers have been an increasingly controversial subject - but wouldn't tazers here, have been a much better choice? what is the average range and voltage (or how exactly is the strength of the tazer, measured?) of a police-issued tazer device?

obviously, long-range distance is most-likely out of the question for small tazer devices, when officers aren't within a 100 ft or so of the suspect.

however, aren't there any other shooting devices or weapons these days, that can subdue a suspect, without actually killing the person? i don't know, say a bigger gun-like tazer? So instead of being connected to the discharge unit via a wire, when this larger gun-tazer-device shoots a bullet-like size projectile, a charge is set off on impact, inflicting enough shock to subdue to the victim enough to where police could then scramble in and intercept?

Zoo keepers, animal veterinarians, large game/safari hunters and animal control units have been using dosage weapons, or tranquilizers for... decades, at least? this would surely seem like a much safer way to subdue an individual, no? why is this option not used, at all? you never hear "the suspect was tranquillized, arrested and taken into custody, safely."

shoot the suspect with a dose of something that temporarily paralyzes or completely knocks out the victim, instantly. these "guns" could easily feature a three-dose size selection, with an easy switch - small, medium and large - click the general size of the victim, aim and shoot. looks like a gun, feels like a gun, shoots like a gun. inflicts the same intimidation as a gun, maybe?

something just as fast as loading/unloading a regular gun, aim and fire - is there a reason why officers aren't equipped with these options? cost? i guess some tranquil dosage options would cost more than cheap ammo and already issued gun models, currently in use. regular guns and ammo could be the next step to resort to, if the tranquilizer doesn't do it on the first round. but i believe quicker, less life-threatening options should be seriously considered. in today's world, it doesn't seem like that should be so hard to accomplish.

some more info on what other options are currently available, and why these options aren't used, or why these other options aren't available, would be good to know.

thanks

Redline responding to a comment by Sgt. David Krumer
01.25.12 - 1:09 am

not small darts... there are dosage sizes to bring down elephants, gorilla's and tiger's, almost instantly. i'm sure they have, or can, modify them easily to instantly subdue a human.

that video is another good point. shoot a guy more than three times? point blank range? you mean at least three officers can't control a situation with one suspect, without having to shoot the guy that many times? that's just ridiculous. exactly what the dudes recording the video said "they coulda shot him in the leg" they coulda tazed him. they could have done a number of things differently.

Father Crime, thanks - that video is the perfect example of the topic here. the topic of police going WAY BEYOND protect and serve, to.... shoot and kill.

any further info? did the suspect in this video die from the gunshots? certainly looks like it. again, i don't know the reason this had started, or what not, details - but from what i can see in the video, it looks like more than three officers on the scene. the suspect steps out of establishment, barely outside for 5 secs, before being shot to the ground. practically point blank range.

so, from a police perspective, that was ok?
it was right to just "kill a man"? that's procedure?

not a single other method of controlling the situation, seemed to happen. yea, maybe the police officers are yelling at him... get down, put your hands up, etc...

what criminal is going to listen to police, anyway? they're not. that doesn't mean they deserve to die, on the spot. no review. no trial. no innocent or guilty. just DEAD.

that's NOT RIGHT

that's not a service of justice

that's not protection

that's not HUMAN

ok, well i guess i'm ranting to nothing, to no one really, anyway. it's not like anything i say here, will really change things. spark more debate, possibly. but won't change much.

Sgt, it would be most excellent if you could give us any info on what other methods or measures of control are currently available, or could possibly become available, in regards to replacing firing arms as the first round of defense/offense in a crime situation...

are officers suppposed to try pepper spray, or tazers, or use their batons or night sticks, first? guns are pulled immediately, simply under "suspicion" that a suspect may be armed and dangerous?

i would still like to believe that there are alternative methods of resolving an escalated situation, that doesn't have to resort in death. i would like to think that if firing arms were removed from most circumstances, at least as the first round measure, there would be less casualties on both sides.

Tazers are an excellent less-lethal option that can be utilized in some circumstances. Tazers work as follows: An officer presses the trigger and two electric prods connected to thin wires shot from the tip of the tazer gun. As the prods travel away from the gun they also travel away from each other in a “V” type pattern. When the prods contact the suspect an electric arc connects between those two prods across the suspects body and incapacitates them. If even one prod misses, the circuit is not complete and the tazer is ineffective. Additionally, if the suspect is wearing heavy clothes the prod could bounce off or fail to make a sufficient connection. Tasers are best used against a person who is relatively stationary and wielding a weapon other than a firearm. An example would be: officers surround a person holding a knife (in a non-throwing position), the person is threatening officers if they approach but is not lunging at them either. Because officers cannot safely approach they can utilize a tazer from a distance of about 20-25 feet. If they miss they can reload and try again or utilize another less lethal weapon (beanbag shotgun). Tazers cannot be employed against a moving target as the likelihood of both prods contacting the suspect is small. If that suspect is armed with a gun, an officer cannot count on the tazer to stop the threat whether the suspect is moving or stationary…I am sure you have heard the saying that “you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. “ This saying, while a bit snarky is accurate. When confronted with what you believe to be lethal force you need to respond with lethal force. I apologize that I do not know the voltage or specifications of our Tazers.

To my knowledge tranquilizers have been categorically rejected as a legitimate tool of law enforcement for the purposes of knocking out a suspect. Tranqs are less lethal options…but law enforcement already has superior less lethal option such as the beanbag shotgun for use in open spaces and slightly longer distances…and Tazers for confined spaces and shorter distances. But keep in mind that even if tranqs were used, they would only be deployed in a situation such as the one I described above. They would not be used if an officer is confronting what he believes to be an imminent lethal threat.

Until someone invents a “phaser” which I can set to stun (forgive the Star Trek reference) that will immediately and effectively stop a lethal threat, I fear we will have more “state of mind” shootings.

1) Suspect armed with a crowbar walks out of Carls Jr
2) Suspect sees officers and walks toward the camera
3) The officer nearest the suspect originally has his gun out...then hosters (most likely in anticipation of the suspect complying with orders to drop the crowbar so he can handcuff him)
4) At the 44 second mark the suspect turns on the officer who just holstered ,
5) The suspect raises the crowbar up from around his hip to his shoulder
6) Upon doing so the officers partner fires several shots at the suspect.

My preliminary opinion is that the shooting was in immediate defense of life. The officers reacted to the suspects attempt to swing at the officer with a weapon that could have killed him. The "shooting" would most likely be found justified.....BUT the tactics that led up to the shooting will most likely result in the officers being severely disciplined.

Among the issues are:
Why were the officers so close to the suspect? They placed themselves in the danger zone. They could have maintained a safer distance and utilized a less lethal option to disarm the suspect. Were there less lethal options on the scene? If not, why not?

The number of shots seem excessive if they all came from the same officer. If there are 5 officers at the scene and they all conclude the suspect is endangering a persons life each would have justification for shooting. So a suspect being shot 20 times if there are multiple officers at the scene is not uncommon or a red flag. A single officer firing multiple rounds after the suspect poses no threat is not justified.

Studies have shown that Officers involved in a shooting are asked "how many shots did you fire?" The officer responds 3-5 but in fact shot nearly the entire clip of 10-15 is spent. The officer had no intent to lie...its that when a shooting takes place the officers mind recognizes that the threat has been eliminated before the officers body does and as a result the body continues to react to the threat. Officers are not machines...and its because of the fact that they are human that their perception could be wrong, their reactions could be delayed, their instinct for self-preservation overriding. I do not believe these shootings take place because cops are malicious (or to use the term of critics "Assholes") I believe these shootings take place because cops are human...they want to go home to their families, they don't want there kids to grow up without a parent. They want to serve but they don't want to die.

Who escalated the situation to a shooting scenario? The officer (who actually holstered his gun) or the suspect that raised the crowbar up into swinging position? The officers may have made mistakes...for which they should be punished. But whether the shooting occurred or not was in the suspects hands not the officers.

To me this represents a slippery slope akin to the issues that cyclists face on the roads right now.

We've all agreed that life is precious above all other concerns. It's why we have levels of training according to the responsibilities we take on. Police. Drivers. Doctors. Pharmacists barbers... all need training and licenses to practice....

So for example, an officer is trained to deal with hostile weapon wielding people. I mean, this guy with the crowbar and he flinched like he was going to do something. Pretty stupid, but a regular person on the street could stand a chance of getting out of harms way let alone a trained officer. This isn't about whether this guy was fit for society, it's about the protection of all life and protecting against abuse of the power to decide to kill someone. judgement call in this case... you can see where it would lead if the suspect rushed the officer. the covering officer wouldnt have been able to fire on the suspect since the line of fire would have been crossed with the restaurant and the cop.... but still. this is pretty disturbing. I dont think many people feel that the cops in this video exhuasted their options.

That same distinction in training is what drives me insane about the policy that excuses drivers when they kill people in crosswalks or on bikes. "I didn't see them" is now considered a valid excuse because we as a society let slide the responsibility of the powerful to use every precaution to protect those with less power.... these are suposed to be licensed equipment operators. any private company with forklift operators would have a serious investigation and retraining if their facilities produced deaths on the regular. we dont do that with our streets and we dont require drivers to go through retraining when they kill someone...

Let's phrase it slightly different. An officer sees a crowbar wielding man raise it up as if he is about to strike a civilian. The civilian may be able to jump out of the way or may not...we don't know. If he does not he is going to be hit in the head. Remember from my previous postbhat a taser or less lethal option may not stop the threat. Officer has his gun drawn. Shot or not shot? Do you risk the possibility off serious (if not fatal) harm to the cilvlian? What would society expect of the officer? What would the civilian expect? Does the officer have the right to risk the safety of the civilian? After asking these questions you determine that an officer would be justified in shooting the suspect to prevent harm to the civilian...why not to prevent harm to the officer?

Officer do receive special training...but they are not superhuman. Their heads are no harder, their bones no less fragile. The fact that they are cops does not make their reflexes any faster and in fact their 20-30 pounds of gear actually hampers their ability to get out of the way. The civilian has a better chance of jumping out of the way and avoiding the strike. Keeping this in mind does that change your opinion?

since a civilian is not trained, and is someone that the city has hired the police to protect, then the suspect should be shot.... but in this case the suspect was lunging towards a trained officer who could have from the looks of the video, used other options to avoid killing the suspect.... I'm not really in favor of protecting people who run around with crowbars smashing windows. But it is alarming that it didnt take much for the cops to kill the guy....

Lets put it this way, street fight between 3 civilians on private property. one has a crowbar and two others have guns. would the civilians be excused in this exact scenario for killing dude with crowbar? and what if they didnt use guns to kill the suspect...

I'm just playing devil's advocate for the most part because I do think the guy in the video was stupi, but I do have concerns about the way this kind of reasoning to justify the officer's actions above works towards excusing deadly actions in other situations.

You are basically saying that since the police are trained and paid that taking the hit is part of the job. I disagree. Here are the two options that society must chose from:

1) Officers are paid professionals with a duty to protect and serve. They knowingly join a profession where they could be attacked. They assume the risks of that choice and can not later claim fear or self defense when the attack eventually comes. In this scenario the other officers should have chanced that the (holstered) officer would be fine.

2) Criminals are outside the rules of society. They know that by engaging in crimal activity that law enforcement will respond and use force to subdue them. By choosing to be criminals they assume the risks that officers will use force that at times may be excessive under the circumstances. In this scenario, the officers used bad tactics and should be punished for that...but the officer was facing a lethal threat (one admittedly by his own making) and the suspect should have been shot because he knowingly escalated events to a lethal situation.

Your examples with the three civilians. Yes...if the civilians with guns can show it is self defense then they would be excused. They may be arrested and held until facts can substantiate self defense though.

Please note that officers are using the end of their baton in a thrusting motion to the center body mass...they are not using it in a swinging motion (like a baseball bat) to the head. If officers were to do this they would be outside of policy and subject to criminal prosecution for utilizing deadly force in a situation where they were not confronting deadly force. Head strikes are considered the same level of force as a shooting.

I'm leaning towards both options really... but also a third option in which the state strains itself to preserve life and be accountable to the public to a fault. in this third option the state becomes benign and compassionate and disarming to society in general. Some would view the fact that the presence of a violent state raises the violence of society. If people dont feel threatened by the presence of the state would they act as violent?

Also, In this case it is clear that the person who was shot to death was a criminal... however because of the reality that innocent people can be and are killed- cases in which unarmed civilians have been shot dead that were holding cell phones or innocent bystanders getting caught up in a melee and so forth- it is more important that the state provide safer means to subdue criminals.

I appreciate your honesty though about the video and appreciate your role as the LAPD liaison with bike community.

imagine that, instead of 2 or 3 cops showing up with lethal weapons.... perhaps 10 or 20 community ambassadors showed up with soothing words and a concerned ear... "what is going on in your life that you feel you must wield a crowbar sir. how can we help you overcome your anger?"

Sgt. David Krumer, thanks for conversing with us. if anything, i'm learning quite a bit here. i looked up some stuff. i was quite surprised tazers were really so ineffective. only 20-25 ft? and heavy clothing prevents most attacks, ok. i still think there are plenty of alternative options out there, that are not being utilized.

guns are too quickly the fail-safe for most situations, which is often resulting in death. as we are seeing all too often, these days... too much gun violence.

most petty criminal activity in these situations, should not result in death - and should NOT involve firearms, as the first measure in controlling these situations.

the crowbar incident, for example: not knowing if he previously hurt anyone, but if he had not actually hurt anyone up to this point, and was just menacingly wielding a crowbar - although quite stupid - there is absolutely no need for firing arms, here.

like you mentioned, bringing a "knife to a gun fight" - a crowbar versus 5 x officers w guns? most people are not Neo, we don't live in the Matrix.

at that close of range, they clearly could have taken out his legs first, and not shoot him to death, if they really felt firearms were still so necessary.

the bean-bag shotgun approach was new to me, so i checked that out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round

although death can occur from this, it is certainly on a much lower scale, when comparing to regular firearms.

i would love to see officers have ammo of both rounds, available in their shotgun arsenal, and choose bean bag rounds first. it will hurt like hell, but at least the criminal will most likely still be alive to deal with the consequences, later.

these escalated situations could end up a lot less deadly, and officers over reactions for safety concerns, could be a lot more justified.

even criminals have mothers, kids, family and friends. a LIFE. i don't believe it is up to some "over-reaction to safety" by an officer, that should choose anyone's time in this universe.

what's up with LAPD getting TRAINED by the military in DTLA this week? and all the MILITARY Vehicles and MILITARY equipment that's coming from every angle, across the united states this week?

Imagine an alert system that goes out to the community ambassadors whenever a crime is reported that is gps enabled sent to all local cellphones... Totally serious about this kind of policing...

When i was in the UK where the cops dont have guns, i saw a woman officer take down a crook in an alley. It was the most amazing sight to see. She had some shoulder padding and she shimmied side to side as the crook tried to evade her. She lunged, tackled, and cuffed the crook who was a big dude. By the time back up ran up - Yes ran up not swarm in a thousand cruisers she had dude subdued and against a wall. I have it on video somewhere.

good thing they were within policy. Or wait, good thing policy doesn't allow headstrikes, because then the argument would be "notice the strikes to the head, which are within policy, but had they shot the person they would be subject to a farce representation of prosecution where the officers would more than likely be given a slap on the wrist judgement, and no one from our department will speak out against their criminal actions".

Remember people, headstrikes hurt, but strikes to the stomach, well, those are just within policy.

What in your opinion should law enfrocements response be to an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse? How close should an officer allow a crowd (often hostile) to come to them? What level of forces (if any) is appropriate?

With regard to the video...an officer does not need to follow an order they feel is unlawful or immoral.

Personally i think the police shouldnt be there except in the roll of facilitation. Imagine unarmed community ambassadors bringing food and water to the protestors. "people of the community, students and faculty. How can we help you. What message are you here to deliver, and to whom would you like to deliver it to. We will do what we can to help until your issue has been addressed."

If I attempt to strike a police officer, who just holstered his weapon, with a large metal crowbar, while I am in the midst of a violent rampage, I expect to be shot dead on the spot. 70's,80's,90's,00's,01's, doesnt matter. Thats how it works. jmho.

Conspiracy theorists have at it!!! These joint excercises are some serious cannon fodder. We're all about to imprisoned in FEMA concentration camps!

ChaosRR responding to a comment by Sgt. David Krumer
01.26.12 - 8:45 pm

This topic hit me a little emotionally. Thanks for some enlightening information, everyone. Thanks for your time, Sgt., i appreciate how you broke everything down to us, for viewpoint comparison. it really helped make a lot more sense to me.

i don't steal, scam, beat, kill or do anything crime related. i don't get arrested. so honestly i did not really know too much about what happens in "escalated crime situations." and i hope i don't really ever have to worry about it.

seriously, i'm about as new to police activity as i am group riding, heh

post 9-11, who's not thinking about conspiracy? oil wars? greedy money and power? new world order? it's everywhere, and whether it all comes crashing down soon or not, guess we'll have to wait and see.

life unravels

knowledge is not only key to survival, but also the greatest weapon you may ever handle

I enlarged that video of the shooting involving the man with the crowbar. Upon looking closer I noticed that the officer who hostered his weapon actually hostered his TASER after firing it and it being ineffective. The officer deploys the taser and you can actually see the wire. The suspect is unaffected and you can actually see him pulling the prods out. When the officer hostered the taser the suspect turned on the officer and the partner officer used lethal force. A less lethal option was in fact utilized. This illustartes my prior point on tasers...that you can not always rely on them to stop the threat.

I do not think criminals arm themselves because they are protecting themselves from anticipated "state" violence. They arm themselves to commit crimes aganst innocent unarmed victims and to protect themselves from other criminals (drug dealers/gangmembers). You have it a little backwards...the police are armed in response to the criminals being armed.

I don;t know who Mike and do not know the details...therefore I can not comment on his aparticular situation. I can tell you that LAPD does not carry machine guns. They carry rifles (that resemble an M-16) but fire single shots.

The use of deadly force can be used to prevent the escape of a violent fleeing felon when there is probable cause to believe the escape will pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others if apprehension is delayed.

This legal standard can be found in the Supreme court decision in Tennessee v. Garner. The Garner standard, which is also referred to as the "fleeing felon standard," allows for the limited use of deadly force against fleeing felons under three restrictive criteria. Under the Garner "fleeing felon standard," a law enforcement officer can use deadly force against a fleeing felon if: (1) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the felon's escape, (2) the fleeing felon has threatened the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe that the felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, AND (3) the officer gives the felon some warning of the imminent use of deadly force - if feasible.

I am not sure what you are trying to illustrate by the videos you posted. In the "dancing protestors" video the officer gave them clear instructions, was professional, and only used the amount of force necessary to overcome the demonstrators resistance.

The rule prohibiting their activity was enactted by a democratically elected legislative body so that all persons can enjoy the monument without unnecessary disturbance. The officers were enforcing that rule. If you are championing the disregard of rules put in place by public representative my question to you is why do you dislike democracy? The right way to do it is to go about changing the rule rather than breaking the rule.

In the second video we don't see what happened off camera, but if the suspect came at the officer with a knife the shooting may be justified...though I question why the officer would approach an armed suspect rather than take cover and call for back-up. It appears to be a tactical mistake.

The BART shooting has been adjudicated and the officer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

I agree but I'm beginning to question that thinking... because it's a chicken and egg argument.... but I agree, criminals are armed because they victimizing innocent people. But I'm making the argument that we have to find ways to police society without adding a layer of it's own violence. I'm being totally sincere about what I'm saying.

See, if we make violence so accessible, it becomes normalized behaviour.. The state in that crowbar video, was argue-ably quick to shoot this guy and really go out of their way to shoot him dead. That kind of action on behalf of the state sets a tone for society. I mean, the people filming this guy get shot. they were laughing. That's hugely sad to me. A crazed shopper at a Walmart pepper sprayed other customers not weeks after the Pike pepper spray incident at Cal.

Of course the guy with the crowbar deserved punishment for going crazy and for being a threat to society. Would a jury have given him death for his crime? The state is a powerful force and it has the power to inspire people. Living under a state that would inspire fear is less desire-able than a state that inspires compassion. I'd rather use the state to address the roots of the situation.

In this case, we will never know exactly why this person went berzerk. We cannot question him and learn anything about his motives or issues. He wasnt in it to get money, he had some kind of anger issue.

It just seems like violence against violence is not the way to go...

I think, over the generations, that a calm and compassionate state will bring the violence down a few notches... They've proven this in some european states. Arent crimes per capita far lower in states like those?

Think about it like this.... we ask our citizens to be non-violent when they protest an injustice. What if the state protested the injustice of individual crimes with non violence?

I only think about it like this because I've personally seen kids that start off involved in criminal activity, find this bicycle community and actually become inspired away from crime. Part of it is the overwhelming non violence of the bike community... Maye a lot of it is finding people who are just a broke as you are yet resourceful and generally happy regardless :) But When I think of eddieboy and how in no other situation would he be accepted with so much love by a hugely diverse community.... he slips up, but all in all I bet the community changed his life. Im just being idealistic I suppose... but then again...

Originally I thought this was about a scenario when getting pulled over on your bike goes wrong. It seems like some of the police 'response' events described above involve questionable profiling calls made by the individual officers.

Uncooperative people in proximity to deadly objects could be construed as threats. Many bicycle riders carry objects that could be construed as deadly object, like a u-lock, the bicycle itself, a pump or glitter etc. can all be used to inflict harm.

It seems like the ominous undertone of this thread is if a rabble rouser gets on an individual's bad side, that makes the individual be nicer to them. That is surely the path to success. And it is always an excellent idea to try to wind up a cop, they'll respond by offering you cookies from their mobile cookie-making truck.

Its true police officers are just people, California high school mostly around these parts. In review, my understanding is if an individual is perceived as a member of the fleeing felons club, and outruns or evades the officer's grasp, the likely winded officer can cut you down as best they can with an mp5? That is good to know. There could be a language barrier. I suppose that some mentally ill, learning impaired or other special needs person could get hurt and it would be within policy. Kind of like dolphins killed in shark nets.

I got pulled over for pushing a red and the plainwrap (D'oh!) that pulled me over and started to frisk during the interview. Cut me loose with a fix it for no light (my bad). I was surprised they frisked for a traffic stop but their questioning was looking for parolees/probationers and meth. I sensed they determined I wasn't the type of collar they were after... I mean they were looking for serious crime and the traffic stop was perhaps a pretext. They were wearing windbreakers and jeans and it was after midnight. I profiled them as detectives (yep) looking for druggang crimes. I suppose the Attorney General defines law objectives via budget, and that trickles down to the local level in terms of "address X% of your resources towards this crime" be it meth or fat German dudes hosting online storage sites identity theft etc. So anyway, I haven't got roughed up by the fuzz but I appear Caucasian and speak English fluently, I think that helps.

Imagine an instance where a super drunk guy totals his car in a single car wreck, no injuries. He calls his older sibling, who works in law enforcement in that jurisdiction. The little brother explains his predicament and in the end drinking thing never comes up in the single car accident that he was driven home from. Man that is a good outcome for that guy, but I imagine if it was instead an individual without a pig sister to help them out the story would have ended differently. Could such a thing ever happen?

But for serious, what is your advice for a traffic stop to go smoothly and safely?

There is NO WAY to keep guns out of criminal hands, therefore any form of gun control is a myth.

If the State and Citizens are prepared for criminal activity (i.e. competent society is armed and enabled with their own preservation) then criminals will be at a disadvantage. Right now I don't perceive this as being the case in America (save Texas).

If everybody's packing the ultimatum is human nature, and I am WILDLY OPTIMSTIC that most of us don't have a homicidal bone in our bodies.

:)

p.s. - Violent crime is down ... way down from when I took a shattered FU .38 hollow point to the thigh in a 1989 attempted carjacking.

I hear what you are saying and share your hope for a future where the need for force is obsolete. However, the "State" is not an entity onto itself but a conglomerate of the individuals making up the body that gives it power. It's not the state that has to evolve...it's us as individuals and us as a society...when that happens the state will follow.

With regards to crime.

The U.S. Has the most crime...but if you look specifically at violent crime:

France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, and Spain rank in the top ten for Rape with a host of Scandinavian/European countries all coming in ahead of the U.S. Which is way down at number 57.

The U.S. is in the top 5 for murders with handguns and has a higher murder rate than European countries...countries like Finland, France, and Denmark have a higher assault rate and Sweden is tied with the U.S.

Robbery... a violent crime whereby property is taken from another by force...the U.S. Ranks #16 (same as Finland)...which is behind Italy, UK, France, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, and switzerland.

Several European countries have higher suicide rates than the U.S. In every age category.

On the surface Europe may appear to be more civilized and socially progressive, but the reality is that no matter how socially responsible a group may appear to be...there will be those in a society that will not conform to the norms of that society.

1) Comply with the officers orders.
2) Hold your questions until after he is done doing whatever he is doing.
3) Keep your hands out of your pockets and in plain view.
4) Do not reach for anything until you advise the officer what you are reaching for. (I.e. Officer asks you for your ID...you respond "My wallet is in my back pocket, can I take it out?"
5) Be polite even if you think the officer is being a jerk.
6) After all is said and done, if the officer does not explain why he stopped you, feel free to ask...or ask for a supervisor if you feel it is necessary.
7) If your friend gets stopped...you can observe from a safe distance....but under no circumstances are you to approach the officer and ask what he is doing until after the officer is finished....You are not entitled to know why a third party is detained. If your friend wants to tell you afterward it is his prerogative.
8) If you have any objects which can be used as a weapon...advise the officer....I.e. "Officer I have a bike lock in my back pocket."
9) If the officer handcuffs you do not resist and wait until after he is done to explain why he handcuffed you.

I think that pretty much covers it. Even if you do all I mentioned you might get an officer who is a jerk, will disrespect you, and treat you harshly. If that happens file a complaint. You might not believe it will accomplish anything...but even if he is found innocent your complaint will be a foundation or a "pattern of practice" complaint. The next time someone makes a similar allegation they will have your complaint to substantiate it.

No one is saying that anywhere could be a utopia... We are all human. We make mistakes. Humans are animals and will act on instinct.

Im just saying that the state and actors of the state, in an ideal situation should be trained to a fault in the use of non violence. It should involve a lot more of the local community and less on some centralized power. More individuals each with less power could maintain order.

Basically Im arguing for a benign state. Less government. Im basically arguing a purist libertarian line of thinking.

I can see what you are saying... if everyone is armed then everyone is safe.... It makes sense. That is the same argument that Iran and North Korea are saying in terms of their desire to possess nuclear weapons. And I say that both lines of reasoning are correct. Until every person living in the US possesses guns and are trained in their use, there will always be increased risk of crime since not every citizen will be able to defend against an attack by a gun wielding person. Similarly, non-nuke bearing nations of the world must always fear attack by nuke bearing nations and that's why they work to gain access to them. If no one had nukes, there would be less pressure to acquire them. If no one had guns there would be more hand to hand combat.

But what if everyone was trained in community policing methods?

Waco, Oscar Grant, the seattle shooting, the shooting at carl's jr... these are all violent state actions... there were other ways to empower the state to defend the population without risking the individual actors of the state to have so much power.

Exactly. (US vs USSR '60 - '8x++). Those of us growing up in the 70's getting nuked and Godzilla or King Kong were about it, as far as terror. Oh yea JAWS came out in 75!.

the kicker is you (govt) can only take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

you (govt) can't take them away from criminals and you (govt) can't stop criminals from getting them, or manufacturing them.

so any form of gun control is in my mind a myth.

on the flip side I hope the fine folks who carjacked and shot me in 1989 went on to a better future, and had I been armed that night, my life surely would have taken a different path ... 20 years later I feel fortunate my hands have no blood on them.

Let me begin by stating that I do not have a degree in math or statistics, I also do not have a degree in sociology. I do not speak German. Therefore what follows is a lay persons interpretation and analysis…and should be taken as such.

We were discussing the prevalence of crime in Europe vs. The United States and looked at some sources to see if the United States has a disproportionate amount of violence compared to European nations.

I think it inappropriate to compare statistics country by country as the challenges facing a Nation of 3 hundred million (U.S.) cannot be compared to a country with a population of under 10 million (Such as Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden). So instead I did a little research on Berlin Germany and compared it to Los Angeles. The reason I selected Berlin is because their population is roughly the same as Los Angeles according to Wikipedia.

BERLIN
Population: 3,490,445 (Wikipedia)

Here are the 2010 crime statistics as reported by the Berlin Police Department (http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/polizei/kriminalitaet/pks/polizeiliche_kriminalstatistik_berlin_2010.pdf?start&ts=1305693402&file=polizeiliche_kriminalstatistik_berlin_2010.pdf)

Los Angeles has a considerably higher average temperature than Berlin that impacts the crime numbers.

Finally, the demographics of Berlin are such that the 73% of the residents are “Germans without migrant background”

In Los Angeles foreign born persons account for at least 35% of the known population (unknown how many undocumented foreign nationals reside here) with over 60% of folks speaking a language other than English as a primary language. This further skews the crime numbers as it is difficult to determine if the level of violence is a function of the local policies and politics (as you hinted may be a possibility) or a function of transplanted cultural experiences.

I leave to your judgment how much (if any) adjustment and scaling should be considered when factoring in gangs, climate, and demographics into the crime statistics shown. I will say that while there are differences, they do not seem to be compelling enough to conclude that a nation like Germany, with its social programs and education, has produced a less violent society than the United States if comparing urban centers.

" If your friend gets stopped...you can observe from a safe distance....but under no circumstances are you to approach the officer and ask what he is doing until after the officer is finished....You are not entitled to know why a third party is detained. If your friend wants to tell you afterward it is his prerogative."

I have seen way to many people over the years get themselves into trouble from doing this. Because then after the officer tells people to back up they ask a million questions and mouth off then.... yeah... all bad news.